WATER ON MARS

The Stormstress · Post by **The Stormstress** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:57 am

I think the water evidence iz just a cover-up 4 Mars' weaponz ov mass destruction ... quick, let'z bomb it!

Codeine Coma · Post by **Codeine Coma** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:04 am

The Stormstress
Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:57 am Post subject:
I think the water evidence iz just a cover-up 4 Mars' weaponz ov mass destruction ... quick, let'z bomb it!

LmFAO!

RavenLunatic · Post by **RavenLunatic** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:16 am

Catalyst1729 wrote: Soon enough we'll have a Mcdonalds on the moon! Just what we need *twirls finger*.

I got this whole Jetsons thing going through my head now! :lol:

Synthpopalooza · Post by **Synthpopalooza** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:59 pm

In regards to the manned mission to Mars:

I agree that the first step needs to be a return to the Moon and the establishment of a permanent human presence there. For one thing ... since the Moon's gravity is like 1/4 of ours, the physics involved in actually putting someone into space are going to be a lot less expensive and prohibitive ...

white_darkness · Post by **white_darkness** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:06 pm

If there's water, that makes terraforming easier. A colony on another planet also means another important thing.

Space Piracy!!!!

Coor ~ the sterilization program you mentioned (if I'm remembering correctly) is being done by a non-profit group who also does rehab work. They offer the mother's money to get sterilized, and many do.

I'll admit, I see nothing wrong with this and find it beneficial, better so, than a large number of babies born with birth defects and being addicted to whatever random drugs went through their mother's bloodstreams.

Of course, said non-profit was under attack by human rights groups for taking away the mother's right to reproduce.

Finally, I remember it being California a few years ago. If New York is trying it (the actual gov't) I have to give them a salute.

Celestial Dung · Post by **Celestial Dung** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:27 pm

First a quesiton for our more scientific minds.

How possible is it that fossils of past life forms could still be on Mars, assuming of cource that there was such a thing...

And now my soapbox. Space exploration is important to me becasue i feel that it advances knowledge of the materials in our universe. Gaining understanding, nay even gaining questions, is imparitave to our advancement as a species. I feel that all of the advances we enjoy today...Medicene, transportation, communication, and aesthetic all came about becasue of the ability to investigate.

I would perfer human investigation on Mars as opposed to robotic simply becasue humans are a lot more self substaining then machines becaasue or our ability to creat solutions to unforseen problems. Machines still have a problem with creativity. I'm sure there's some leaps in that field but nothing that can jimmy rig a problem yet.

This is my defention of AI. When a machine can Jimmy Rig it has obtained a higher form of existence.

As for the problems on earth we face, they will always be there. If we waited to solve hunger and violence on earth before going adventuring we as a species are stuck on this planet. And as pretty as it is I do want to see some other things.

Side track issue if you will. There's some fear that if NASA puts all it's energies behind a mission to Mars that the Hubble will suffer. Comments? Me while I would love a expedition to Mars I think the Hubble would be a sad thing to let fall in disrepair.

Coor · Post by **Coor** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:41 pm

Coor ~ the sterilization program you mentioned (if I'm remembering correctly) is being done by a non-profit group who also does rehab work. They offer the mother's money to get sterilized, and many do.

I'll admit, I see nothing wrong with this and find it beneficial, better so, than a large number of babies born with birth defects and being addicted to whatever random drugs went through their mother's bloodstreams.

Of course, said non-profit was under attack by human rights groups for taking away the mother's right to reproduce.

I think it is fab-u-lous that they are doing that. All of those fucking bullshit groups about taking away the mother's rights and shit.

NUMBER 1- THEY AGREE DO TO IT! Its not required, that I believe is an infingement on Constitutional rights, bu twho knows Prestidents try to change it every 4 years anyways.

NUMBER 2- What about those children who don't get to have their rights, because some cracked out WHORE took it from them.

Oh, wait sorry if that wasn't PC enough, but stuff like that really gets under my skin.

jenna · Post by **jenna** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:46 pm

To me, science is not the enemy of social change. In fact, learning more about our universe will only give us more options on what to do about societal and environmental problems. Even without looking at the potential benefits that actual manned exploration could bring, we could use the knowledge to better understand the way that things work here on Earth, and therefore not need to eventually turn to going to other planets.

Space research already has a history of helping with solving the problems here on Earth. For example, before scientists studied the lithosphere of Venus, there was no real proof that greenhouse gasses would have a detrimental effect on the climate of a planet, and not much attention was paid to environmentalists pitching a fit over the release of CFC's and other similar chemicals. However, once the evidence from space exploration was put to use and people could actually see first-hand what a greenhouse effect eventually does to a planet, people became more seriously concerned about what was happening on Earth and began to take steps to limit the harm that we have done to our planet.

white_darkness · Post by **white_darkness** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:33 pm

Coor wrote:NUMBER 1- THEY AGREE DO TO IT! Its not required, that I believe is an infingement on Constitutional rights, bu twho knows Prestidents try to change it every 4 years anyways.

NUMBER 2- What about those children who don't get to have their rights, because some cracked out WHORE took it from them.

Oh, wait sorry if that wasn't PC enough, but stuff like that really gets under my skin.

Exactly, they agree to it. They're not forced.

And in regards to number 2: That is true, what good is there in bringing a life into the world that would have to exist attached to a machine and in pain for its natural life? Or any of the other possibilities that could happen?

Synthpopalooza · Post by **Synthpopalooza** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:34 pm

Celestial Dung wrote:How possible is it that fossils of past life forms could still be on Mars, assuming of cource that there was such a thing...

Very possible. Usually, water=life ... I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of fossilized remains turned up somewhere.

I would perfer human investigation on Mars as opposed to robotic simply becasue humans are a lot more self substaining then machines becaasue or our ability to creat solutions to unforseen problems. Machines still have a problem with creativity. I'm sure there's some leaps in that field but nothing that can jimmy rig a problem yet.

I would agree, although I maintain our first step has to be to establish a human presence on the moon. It's more cost effective in the long run, plus returning to the moon could be seen as a practice run for when we do eventually send people to mars. Not to mention that once we do have a permanent moonbase, the Space Shuttle program can be modified to a sort of earth-moon transit program, transporting our people back and forth.

At some stage, perhaps in the future, space travel will need to be privatized ... once there is a permanent human foothold on the moon, it can be opened up to private enterprise.

Side track issue if you will. There's some fear that if NASA puts all it's energies behind a mission to Mars that the Hubble will suffer. Comments? Me while I would love a expedition to Mars I think the Hubble would be a sad thing to let fall in disrepair.

I agree ... the Hubble is a very valuable research tool. Don't believe it? Check out http://www.extrasolar.net ... since 1995 alone, we have discovered more than 100 planets that exist outside of our own solar system, circling other stars. It's possible that some of these could even be earthlike. If nothing else, it gives humanity perhaps another goal to shoot for in 100 years' time.

To quote poet e.e. cummings: "there's a hell of a universe next door ... let's go"

Coor · Post by **Coor** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 6:26 pm

How do we know that water automatically equals life? They've yet to have physical proof. Sure it did on our planet, but those are differant living conditions, and differant lengths from the sun.

doctorthoss · Post by **doctorthoss** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:01 pm

Coor wrote:How do we know that water automatically equals life? They've yet to have physical proof. Sure it did on our planet, but those are differant living conditions, and differant lengths from the sun.

Good point -- we don't know that water necessarily equals life, although we're moving toward the conclusion that life develops fairly easily in wet environments.
Believe it or not, the distance from the sun isn't necessarily as important as it might appear. We've discovered life forms here on Earth that can survive without ANY sunlight and in below-freezing conditions. It is entirely possible that microscopic organisms could exits on Mars today.
One little known fact (but one that has been garnering more attention in recent years) is that the Viking lander in the '70s conducted a series of soil analyses to determine if microscopic organisms were present. All but one test came back POSITIVE, and the results of the last test aren't quite conclusive because our current views on life are somewhat different than they were then.
NASA was quite reluctant to trumpet those results, and they were listed as "inconclusive." Also, one of the photos take from the current mission shows an odd, pasta shaped SOMETHING in the soil -- they've not addressed what it might be, and the current landers lack the ability to perform actual lab work (they're well-equipped, nonetheless).

Whether anything is there now has yet to be determined, but there most certainly could have been in the past. It would probably require human exploration to put that issue to rest, however, as any fossils left behind would have to be dug up (unless one of the rovers was fantastically lucky). I'm personally surprised that we didn't send a rover to one of the poles, where there have been some interesting discolorations around the snow over the years (might be some kind of algae, or something as simple as a chemical reaction of some type).

Coor · Post by **Coor** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:45 pm

Actually I think that the sun has alot more to do with life than percieved, and also the planets rotation. It it doesn't rotate as Earth does, thus gettng say less than half of the sunlight, I can't remember the stats on Mars at the moment, then their would be less, if any plant life, unless that is it was structured differantly, and did not need sunlight for photosynthesis, but that's a totally differant converstation.

doctorthoss · Post by **doctorthoss** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:49 am

Coor wrote:Actually I think that the sun has alot more to do with life than percieved, and also the planets rotation. It it doesn't rotate as Earth does, thus gettng say less than half of the sunlight, I can't remember the stats on Mars at the moment, then their would be less, if any plant life, unless that is it was structured differantly, and did not need sunlight for photosynthesis, but that's a totally differant converstation.

Valid point, at least if we're talking about plant life as we've seen on Earth. Mars gets adequate sunlight for photosynthesis to take place (we've measured that for years), but the atmosphere is far too thin for any significant heat to build up (if our atmosphere was that thin it would be far too cold for us -- or 99 percent of the Earth's species to survive). Think about what it's like in the upper atmosphere here -- very cold, with very thin air, although even more sunlight reaches the upper levels of the atmosphere than we receive on the surface.
Not all life requires photosynthesis, which is why a lot of the microorganisms discovered in recent years have caused us to revise our opinions on where/how life may or may not develop.
Another point is that the general consensus among scientists is that Mars was once a much warmer planet with a thicker atmosphere. In other words, it was probably once somewhat Earth-like. One of the big questions is: Where did the atmosphere go? There are some fairly sizable impact craters on the surface, and one theory is that an asteroid struck with enough size/force to strip most of the atmosphere away (this could even have happened relatively recently, at least as measured in geological terms).

jenna · Post by **jenna** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:26 pm

Coor wrote:How do we know that water automatically equals life? They've yet to have physical proof. Sure it did on our planet, but those are differant living conditions, and differant lengths from the sun.

The facts that the living conditions would be different and that it would be a different distance from the sun do not negate the properties of water that make it likely to be a base for life. Granted, it does not make for a 100% certainty that water equals life, but it does Significantly increases the chances of life being present. The "life bringing" properties of water are that it causes the hydrophobic protiens necessary for life to clump together, and that it serves as a conduit for new material. Water also provides protection from temprature changes and harmful stellar radiation, making it more likely for life to survive after it has been created in a place where water exists. So, with water having been on Mars in the past, and perhaps even in the present that would indicate that lifeforms similar to those we traditionally consider to be life forms (carbon based/organic) would have a better chance both of having been created and of surviving in an atmosphere different from ours.

Coor · Post by **Coor** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:03 pm

Granted humans adapt to aip pressures and the thiness of the air. I wasn't implying that all life revolved round the sun, but 99 percent of it does.

Dancing With Diaghilev · Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:24 pm

I'm happy they found evidence of water on Mars, but the money could still be better spend on ocean exploration (on Earth) or on attempting to find life on Europa (a moon on Jupiter where we are almost 100% positive there is water). Europa is a gamble, but if life was found on it, it would be a huge leap. Finding life on Mars (while extremely, extremely unlikely) would be big, but may not tell us that much about life-in-general anyway.

Though, Mars exploration isn't that bad all-in-all, as long as it is done by robots. The sending-a-human-to-Mars-by-2035 thing is absolutely idiotic because it will cost a fortune and won't yield any significant results we couldn't have found by using robots.